Pages

To my knowledge HL never had the 4000K 80CRI. Those were hard to get emitters that TA found.

HL had a 4000k 80CRI option for the GB. I bought both the 4000k 80CRI and 5000k 70CRI. The 5000k version was 32.3% brighter than the 4000k.

I really liked the tint on the stock 4000k 80CRI, which was almost as good as my 4000k 219b 9050. The tint was actually closer to the BBL than the one TA was using from Arrow. But the Arrow 4000k was much better than the same 4000k 80CRI from Mouser which is horrendously yellow.

My knowledge/memory on the MT09R emitters is not that great. We should ignore what I said and use your info.

It’s hard to pull any useful information from that video (that we don’t already know), but one thing I noticed was that the 4 battery springs on this 70.2 version are not bypassed at the factory. This would seem to indicate it’s definitely not going to make 24000 lumen. I wish they didn’t over rate it so much. Still, it seems way better than the original light.

I’m not used to complaints about only 1100 lm gains.
BTW, seems like Samsung 20s is a good cell for this light.
It can be had from Vapcell (Vapcell Black 2000 mAh), but it’s a bit expensive.
Is there a better source?

I did ceiling bounce output sag measurement on the output for new version Haikelite MT03 that I estimated to be about 12k lumens compared to my other lights. No temperature chart here, I was lazy to use thermal meter, it is getting very very hot in one minute. With freshly charged batteries and in about one minute, its output dropped from 12k lumens to 11k lumens.

Haikelite and many other brands love to do that. I guess they want to attract uninformed customers with higher lumen number.
For us, we buy knowingly it is unreal theoretical startup LED lumens, it is not ANSI OTF lumens. They never declared it is ANSI specification to anyone.
It is not necessarily a bad thing for us. If they can earn extra money from uninformed customers who don’t really care about lumen, they can stay in the business and continue to come out new and innovative flashlights, it is win win situation.

From TA’s conversations with Haikelite, they don’t even have their own lumen sphere to measure. I’m pretty sure their advertised lumen was taken from TA’s previous measurements in his MT09R modding thread when his lumen sphere was calibrated too high. I really think all manufacturer’s that can’t afford to buy a $10k plus professional lumen sphere should just buy TA’s lumen sphere with the current calibration. That way at least they know what their own lights are producing.

With that said, the MT09R really is a great light. Very nice floody beam that also throws pretty far. Whatever the actual lumen is, you will be impressed with its sheer brightness.

From TA’s conversations with Haikelite, they don’t even have their own lumen sphere to measure. I’m pretty sure their advertised lumen was taken from TA’s previous measurements in his MT09R modding thread when his lumen sphere was calibrated too high. I really think all manufacturer’s that can’t afford to buy a $10k plus professional lumen sphere should just buy TA’s lumen sphere with the current calibration. That way at least they know what their own lights are producing.

With that said, the MT09R really is a great light. Very nice floody beam that also throws pretty far. Whatever the actual lumen is, you will be impressed with its sheer brightness.

There were quite a few cases where we verified their numbers to be grossly exaggerated. Even more than doubled. They never corrected them.
Here they may have taken TA numbers. But they rounded them up. And they surely know that removing spring bypasses reduces output. And I think that someone found that they use worse LEDs.
So no, their numbers are not exaggerated because they are unable to get correct ones. They are intentionally misleading.

I already ordered. I did so with full awareness that I don’t know the output. I find it very likely that it will be well worth the price and accept the risk that it may not.

I don’t like being lied to. And I don’t waste a good occasion to call it out.
But it doesn’t stop me from making business when I think the business is good.
In a way I vote with my wallet, but weakly. I don’t refuse deals with dishonest sellers but take the uncertainty into account when making decisions.

MT09R is great light, relation between price and power is great.
From 3x xhp70.2 and 3x deep reflector the real range is 600m.
For 125$ you get 17-18 klm on output real neutral light ( 144lm for 1$ )
If someone want real 25 klm just buy Olight X9R : 600$ for 25 klm ( 42 lm for 1$ )
Probably in cool white and also the range will be closer.

So no, their numbers are not exaggerated because they are unable to get correct ones. They are intentionally misleading.

Yes, but what else is new. Everyone knows rated specs are almost always exaggerated.

We do. But many don’t. You can see many reviews of people who are actually impressed by those 20000 lumen $20 zoomies.
What manufacturers do is wrong. We can push against it. Showing real numbers is the best thing that we can do.
But I think generating bad publicity where it’s well deserved is a good thing too.

Still is funny how a couple of years ago you had Skyray King clones with 12 emitters advertised as a 20000 lumen lights. Today, soda can lights actually produce 20000 lumens, and it’s quite affordable as well.